Comic Genesis Forums

Topics which don't fit comfortably in any of the other forums go here. Spamming is not tolerated.

Forum rules
- Please use the forum attachment system for jam images, or link to the CG site specific to the Jam.- Mark threads containing nudity in inlined images as NSFW- Read The rules post for specifics

MixedMyth wrote: I realize I'm thinking about this all much too hard, but I can't help it.

Yet isn't that the most honorable purpose of art? Making you think?
I'm very well aware that anything you can read from K'n'K is mostly writer's incompetency (more precisely willingness to ignore some obvious problems of the comic under the guise of 'it's just a comic'), but I also do believe that art exists independently of the creator, that the comic can be clear social darvinism statement even if author didn't intend it to be. That's actually doing the favour to author by refusing to consider possible alterior mothives or subconscious messages or whatever.

Anyways, K'n'K isn't the only comic that applied rules from animal kingdom so strictly. Think of long-forgotten Keenspot comic "Suburban jungle", for instance, where there is also society of animals who eat each other. But only K'n'K gives this awful vibe because it's social darvinism isn't only in elements taken from animal kingdom, but also stretches to normal human-like relationships portrayed in comics. In K'n'K, if superiod characters don't eat inferior ones, they triumph over them in other ways - professionally, intelectually, etc.

There's many other comics that try to keep that predatory element in the comic. Most of them try to play it like whimsical jokes. K'n'K is, I think, the prime example of how that can fail miserably and instead be genuinely disturbing. Like Neko said, most of them fail because their world isn't fully thought throuth. Other comics like "Jack" work because their societies remain human-like and only keep 'furry' visually. These comics don't have to invent entire world because they use enough of real world. But those that use elements from animal kingdom are indeed creating a new world, much like fantasy writers. And like fantasy writers, if the world isn't thought through, it's not convincing, it fails, it has many holes in places where readers easily spot them. Difference between fantasy writers and writers of this kind of furry comics is that furry writers are blisfully unaware that they have to work on their world.

I personally prefere subtlety. Furry is a nice way of underlining the point. Say you have a tiger character who eats other characters - that's painfully obvious. But say you have a tiger character who is predatorial, but in the social sence of the world, as in, professionally, emotionally, etc. Now that's much more subtle.

Kevin and Kell is one of my 'Why do I read this I don't enjoy it, but eh, it updates every day and takes maybe three seconds of my time' lemming reads.

On the subject of its disturbingness, does its treatment of domestication bother anybody else?

Because on the one hand, domestication is some kind genetically based huuuge social disorder, surrounded by terrible stigma, but then it's repeatedly implied that certain characters cheat on their significant others because they aren'y domesticated. So cheating is not only socially normal, it's genetic and inescapable.

Wow, I didn't even know about that. That is really disturbing. Why would you apply human social norms to such a world? Or why would you present such a universe, in media form, to be enjoyed and read by a normal society, but make no effort to point out how fucked up that is?

The Neko wrote:Wow, I didn't even know about that. That is really disturbing. Why would you apply human social norms to such a world? Or why would you present such a universe, in media form, to be enjoyed and read by a normal society, but make no effort to point out how fucked up that is?

it's a rather odd thought, actually, generally, depending on overall setting, it's sometimes unique to have some other critter as a pet (fantasy type), or of the sort, having a lesser evolved version of your neighbor (in K'n'K's case), is kinda odd, but no less strange as owning a chimp or other primate in our world, strange, yes, but considered a pet for the eccentric, and potentially may carry a sort of social stigma with it. Particularly one that hasn't been explored yet.

food on that level would be interesting, too, would you eat a lesser evolved version of your own species with a coke and fries?..

"when a hero dies, he becomes a legend, that legend, with time, becomes a myth, then a fable, that fable, is then carved in stone, and when that stone crumbles, it is lost" - Takahn.

The Neko wrote:Wow, I didn't even know about that. That is really disturbing. Why would you apply human social norms to such a world? Or why would you present such a universe, in media form, to be enjoyed and read by a normal society, but make no effort to point out how fucked up that is?

it's a rather odd thought, actually, generally, depending on overall setting, it's sometimes unique to have some other critter as a pet (fantasy type), or of the sort, having a lesser evolved version of your neighbor (in K'n'K's case), is kinda odd, but no less strange as owning a chimp or other primate in our world, strange, yes, but considered a pet for the eccentric, and potentially may carry a sort of social stigma with it. Particularly one that hasn't been explored yet.

food on that level would be interesting, too, would you eat a lesser evolved version of your own species with a coke and fries?..

There's a reason that people in the western world refrain from eating certain animals. The problem is that in the world written by the author of K&K, he is trying to apply human social values to a world where its basic setup is at complete odds with it. And thus, it is FUCKED UP. Also, considering that most people who read the comic come from an Occidental cultural standpoint (it being written in English), I'd say that a good amount of the potential audience would probably find it disturbing if presented with the premise directly.

The Neko wrote:Wow, I didn't even know about that. That is really disturbing. Why would you apply human social norms to such a world? Or why would you present such a universe, in media form, to be enjoyed and read by a normal society, but make no effort to point out how fucked up that is?

it's a rather odd thought, actually, generally, depending on overall setting, it's sometimes unique to have some other critter as a pet (fantasy type), or of the sort, having a lesser evolved version of your neighbor (in K'n'K's case), is kinda odd, but no less strange as owning a chimp or other primate in our world, strange, yes, but considered a pet for the eccentric, and potentially may carry a sort of social stigma with it. Particularly one that hasn't been explored yet.

food on that level would be interesting, too, would you eat a lesser evolved version of your own species with a coke and fries?..

There's a reason that people in the western world refrain from eating certain animals. The problem is that in the world written by the author of K&K, he is trying to apply human social values to a world where its basic setup is at complete odds with it. And thus, it is FUCKED UP. Also, considering that most people who read the comic come from an Occidental cultural standpoint (it being written in English), I'd say that a good amount of the potential audience would probably find it disturbing if presented with the premise directly.

K&K ignores a lot of human social standards, psychologies, and sciences to try and present something. Unfortunately, it's a poor attempt at best, and ignores a larger part of how humans act, and would act given a simular setting.
If one wants to apply human standards to a anthros, one must take into account on how they would act around others, to others, and whether they'd stick with their species for a larger part. I shan't get into "hybrids" as it's a bit of a odd discussion if there's no fantasy/magical element involved that'd fudge certain biological laws. Or Mad Scientists

"when a hero dies, he becomes a legend, that legend, with time, becomes a myth, then a fable, that fable, is then carved in stone, and when that stone crumbles, it is lost" - Takahn.

Then again, Pluggers can be just as disturbing given the right mindset. But I don't think they have the whole quasi-cannibalistic consumption thing going.

indeed, i myself am working on a different "game animal" structure to keep it separated from whatever critters we have around here, the "Thulda Dragon" being one such example, basically a big lizard that when cooked, tastes kinda like turkey. No idea what to do for "beasts of burden" and such, but i'm gonna try to keep it relatively unique, because things like the above examples, i'd like to avoid.

"when a hero dies, he becomes a legend, that legend, with time, becomes a myth, then a fable, that fable, is then carved in stone, and when that stone crumbles, it is lost" - Takahn.

BrownEyedCat wrote:Because on the one hand, domestication is some kind genetically based huuuge social disorder, surrounded by terrible stigma, but then it's repeatedly implied that certain characters cheat on their significant others because they aren'y domesticated. So cheating is not only socially normal, it's genetic and inescapable.

Perhaps by the time he got to the second issue, he forgot the context in which he used the term in first.It's large archives, you gotta remember of all of them.

it's a rather odd thought, actually, generally, depending on overall setting, it's sometimes unique to have some other critter as a pet (fantasy type), or of the sort, having a lesser evolved version of your neighbor (in K'n'K's case), is kinda odd, but no less strange as owning a chimp or other primate in our world, strange, yes, but considered a pet for the eccentric, and potentially may carry a sort of social stigma with it. Particularly one that hasn't been explored yet.

food on that level would be interesting, too, would you eat a lesser evolved version of your own species with a coke and fries?..

Then insects, fishes and such would be, as less evolved, possible choices for pets, eating, etc etc. In K&K there are insects that are main characters, sufficiently intelligent and unlikely to be eaten or treated as pets. Definitely less so than some victims that are on higher chain of evolution.

BrownEyedCat wrote:Because on the one hand, domestication is some kind genetically based huuuge social disorder, surrounded by terrible stigma, but then it's repeatedly implied that certain characters cheat on their significant others because they aren'y domesticated. So cheating is not only socially normal, it's genetic and inescapable.

Perhaps by the time he got to the second issue, he forgot the context in which he used the term in first.It's large archives, you gotta remember of all of them.

If he had done the "He cheated?""He's not domesticated" thing once, I'd assume it was just a throwaway line. But it happened on two separate occasions, one with major characters.

I don't think it's intentional. I just noticed it made me uneasy, and then mulled it over until I realized "HEY, wait a minute . . ."

Maybe he should have thought about it so it wouldn't be so fucking creepy and disturbing. We're not asking for a fully fleshed-out world here. It just doesn't make any sense and comes off as being fucked up.

Good grief. It's a silly comic that approaches furry life in a silly way. The backdrop is a society of anthropomorphic animals that live a rough version of human life, with some horribly improbable adaptations that are used humorously.

No serious look is taken at their world because it is not a real world, and is only superficially treated as one. There's plenty of lawyers, but nobody sues over their daddy being eaten and his remains sold at a supermarket.

They have dipped into more serious storylines only a few times, and then again, only superficially. Domestication for example is considered a disease, yeah. But it's there to show why Kell hasn't eaten Kevin, and later why her son is more awkward than he should be, and why her (ex)boss hasn't fired her on many numerous occasions.

You are making a serious mountain out of a molehill. It's a silly, fluff comic about a furry society. It's not creepy and disturbing, unless you dwell too long on it.

Crossfire: "Thank you! That explains it very nicely, and in a language that someone other than a physicist can understand..."

Denial is not falsification. You can't avoid a fact just because you don't like it."Data" is not the plural of "anecdote"